Hunting With Suppressors Bill Reintroduced

[yotewacker]

Just because you can does not mean you should!

I have hunted for 20+ years without a suppressor, and I cannot recall any situation where one would have benefited me in harvesting game. Just my opinion but this is a over indulgence of wants....

I hunt as much as anybody. Crap I hunt at least 2 evenings a week.

The suppressor is not for the hunter but, for the neighbors that live close.
So not to make disturbing sounds.

A suppressor with full power ammo does not stop the crack of the bullet. But does stop the flash after dark. With night vision, this is very handy.

Several countries require suppressors for hunting and shooting as not disturbing the neighbors.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have hunted for 20+ years without a suppressor, and I cannot recall any situation where one would have benefited me in harvesting game. Just my opinion but this is a over indulgence of wants

1. The strategic objective has nothing to do with hunting.

2. I do not want my government assigning to me permissible "wants" that I am allowed to have.

Even if I accept the notion that game animals belong to the state of Indiana, as a citizen of Indiana I get to decide how the game animals are harvested.

3. Using suppressors is simply good manners and shows respect for my neighbors so they can enjoy their right to property.

Call, write and e-mail your state senator today!

 

[builder_one]

Just because you can does not mean you should!

I have hunted for 20+ years without a suppressor, and I cannot recall any situation where one would have benefited me in harvesting game. Just my opinion but this is a over indulgence of wants....

And Indians hunted 300 years ago without guns..."just because you can doesn't mean you should"...sound familiar? What a worthless comment...

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Hey, I'm all for freedom. Any law that removes a needless restriction is good to me. however, this one will not affect me personally because of the money involved to get "permission" from the feds to have one. They are nice. I've shot them at Friends of NRA get togethers. If it weren't such a hassle and cost I'd have several.

 

[OneBadV8]

Hey, I'm all for freedom. Any law that removes a needless restriction is good to me. however, this one will not affect me personally because of the money involved to get "permission" from the feds to have one. They are nice. I've shot them at Friends of NRA get togethers. If it weren't such a hassle and cost I'd have several.

It's not that bad. You should try the "hassle" just once. I'm sure you'll see its not that bad after the first one.

 

[teddy12b]

Hey, I'm all for freedom. Any law that removes a needless restriction is good to me. however, this one will not affect me personally because of the money involved to get "permission" from the feds to have one. They are nice. I've shot them at Friends of NRA get togethers. If it weren't such a hassle and cost I'd have several.

I'm the same way. I just don't want the extra paperwork & cost for something I should be able to legally purchase over the counter for around $100. At some point it's just not worth it to me for my 22lr to be that quiet. On the other hand if I ever got that 338 lapua I've been wanting to buy I'd consider going through the trouble because of the recoil reduction.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Permitting the use of suppressors for hunting is not about hunting. The long term strategic goal is to move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.

With each state permitting suppressors, that increases the potential pool of suppressor users. This increases the base of fire for NFA reform at the federal level. Think of it as a bubbling up effect.

"What does that mean, Kirk?" Glad you asked.

If suppressors are moved to Title I, then you can buy them like a 10/22 over the counter at Dick's, Gander Mountain, or Jethro's Pawn and Bait. Federal preemption means that you can do this in California or Illinois.

Moving suppressors to Title I would show that the NFA is not untouchable. Some, even in the gun culture, believe that the NFA is written in stone or some nonsense. However, NFA was reformed for the better in the 1950s by the 16" rule for rifle barrels.

Once suppressors are delisted from the NFA, other modifications seem more logical. One thing the law loves is something to copy off of. Thus, reversing Hughes, my Federal Gun Collector's License or nationwide preemption for NFA all become more viable.

 

[JoshuaW]

Kirk, what was the old rule for rifle barrels? I have never heard that referenced before.

 

[huntall50]

I'm not trying to get into a peeing contest in this tread, I am all for less govt. regulation for all the right reasons, but if I am hunting on private property and/or on known hunting ground I am not concerned about the comfort of my neighbor, they will get used to it and conditioned by the fact that someone is legally exercising their rights to hunt with a firearm that makes noise. Much like OC'ers are conditioning the sheep....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, what was the old rule for rifle barrels? I have never heard that referenced before.

Didn't you ever wonder why rifles are 16" and shotguns are 18".

Didn't one of the SOTs put up a stick on NFA history?

Well, if you want me to play history professor (OMG I looooovvve to play history professor) I will. *put on tweed jacket with leather elbow patches*

You see *takes off reading glasses* (quick time line)

1934--Congress passed the NFA with 18" rifle and shotgun barrels.

1936--Congress reduces rifles in .22 caliber to 16".

1960--Congress in response to bringbacks and people like Sam Cummings reduces rifle barrel length for all rifles to 16" over police opposition (the AOW tax was also reduced to $5.00 that year).

Anywho I can go on and on about NFA history. Maybe I should sit down and do a sticky thread about the NFA history? I thought one of the SOTs had already done so here. Didn't want to oversteop my bounds.

 

[Echelon]

I'm not trying to get into a peeing contest in this tread, I am all for less govt. regulation for all the right reasons, but if I am hunting on private property and/or on known hunting ground I am not concerned about the comfort of my neighbor, they will get used to it and conditioned by the fact that someone is legally exercising their rights to hunt with a firearm that makes noise. Much like OC'ers are conditioning the sheep....

Suppressors make it safer to shoot. It has nothing to do with conditioning, plenty of noise will still be made with supersonic rounds.

When you hunt, do you wear hearing protection?

 

[ShootinIron]

Cans

As for the sonic crack, I use sub-sonic in .308, 300 Blackout, and .22

As for cost and hassle, the cost of a $200 one time fee that has not been raised for 30+yrs is = to about two or three tanks of over priced gas. (I don’t like it… there should not be any fee, but my hearing and not having to use muffs is well worth the $200). The hassle…. Takes me about an hour to hit the sheriff dept for prints and signature (free), CVS for photos ($8), that I can do myself free), then to the post office. It is much more costly and time consuming to take the wife shopping...

As for not being concerned about the comfort of my neighbors… I use a suppressor “mostly” for my use, but I like and respect my neighbors and the use of a suppressor in shooting early mornings, late evenings, and Sundays I look at as being courteous, and it allows me to shoot at times I would not before.

 

[jburris]

Ive already been looking up plans to build my own on my father in laws mill and lathe. Have to get the forms sent off first, and wait. The day I get the paper work back, you can bet I will be in the shop starting my project. I really hope this passes this time.

 

[Echelon]

Ive already been looking up plans to build my own on my father in laws mill and lathe. Have to get the forms sent off first, and wait. The day I get the paper work back, you can bet I will be in the shop starting my project. I really hope this passes this time.

Post some pics once you start!

 

[CountryBoy19]

I'm not trying to get into a peeing contest in this tread, I am all for less govt. regulation for all the right reasons, but if I am hunting on private property and/or on known hunting ground I am not concerned about the comfort of my neighbor, they will get used to it and conditioned by the fact that someone is legally exercising their rights to hunt with a firearm that makes noise. Much like OC'ers are conditioning the sheep....

It's great if you want to condition people to hunting just as OC'ers want to condition people to carrying firearms, but just like an OC'er has the chance to CC, we want the option to hunt more quietly when our discretion says it's the right thing to do. And it's not just about the neighbors. It's about our own hearing.

One glaring example I can think of where suppressor really would benefit all people is night-time coyote hunting in more populated areas. As coyote populations grow and encroach on residential areas, the only way the problem of disappearing pets etc is going to be solved is to get rid of the yotes. Right now the best way to do that "under the radar" without getting the antis all up in a tizzy is to do it at night. But the gunshot is still there. And so then you a bunch of people calling the cops reporting gunshots or people that you woke up with your shot. A suppressor will reduce that problem.

So why put up a fight against giving us the CHOICE on which way we hunt. You hunt your way, I'll hunt my way and we'll all be happy.

 

[Steve B]

Anywho I can go on and on about NFA history. Maybe I should sit down and do a sticky thread about the NFA history? I thought one of the SOTs had already done so here. Didn't want to oversteop my bounds.

Could ya, would ya please. I would be interested in reading it.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

Does anyone know when HB1563 is supposed to get voted on by the senate?

 

[CountryBoy19]

Referred to Senate committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources... lets call the committee members.

• Chair: Senator Carlin Yoder
  Vice Chair:
  Members: Waterman R.M., Crider, Kruse, Mishler, Steele, Tomes, R. Young R.M.M., Skinner, Hume

Brent Steele is one of the co-sponsors of the senate version of this bill I think. The others I don't know.

 

[Oppugnall]

Openstates.org had senate sponsors as Young and Yoder.


Feb 12, 2013 House Senate sponsors: Senators Yoder and R. Young

HB 1563 - Indiana 2013 Regular Session - Open States

 

[parsimonious]

Could ya, would ya please. I would be interested in reading it.

Me too.